Tuesday, September 10, 2019

There is NO climate emergency!

Climate models predict disaster – but real world evidence shows no such thing

Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris

Speaking at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change, held July 25 in Washington, DC, Dr. Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville said: “There is no climate crisis. Even if all the warming we’ve seen in any observational dataset is due to increasing CO2 (carbon dioxide), which I don’t believe it is, it’s probably too small for any person to feel in their lifetime.”

And yet, that same month, Democrat Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Earl Blumenauer and Democrat Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a non-binding resolution that demands a “national, social, industrial and economic mobilization” – to “halt, reverse, mitigate and prepare for the consequences of the climate emergency, and to restore the climate for future generations.” Six Democrat presidential candidates immediately supported the resolution, as a way to spur “sweeping reforms” to stem a “dangerous rise in global temperatures.”

In their view, apparently, asserting a climate emergency makes it a reality and justifies national or even global control and transformation of our energy, social, industrial, economic, legal and social systems.

Thus, in an effort to drum up support for its costly “carbon tax,” the Liberal government of Canada has also declared a climate emergency. So has Britain’s Parliament, to back up a call by opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for “rapid and dramatic action” to protect the environment , following weeks of protests by the Extinction Rebellion climate movement, the Reuters News Agency reported.

The Climate Mobilization group proclaimed that “Over 790 local governments in 17 countries have declared a climate emergency and committed to action to drive down emissions at emergency speed.”

In considering whether this makes any sense, let’s take a page out of Blumenauer’s book and, as he put it, “tell the truth about the nature of this threat.”

The so-called emergency is based on nothing but the over-active imaginations of activists who put too much faith in computer model forecasts, while ignoring historic records and observational data that tell us nothing extraordinary or unprecedented is happening – and demonstrate that the models are wrong.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies asserts that between 1880 and 2017 there has been only slightly more than 1 degree C (1.8 F) rise in the so-called global average temperature, despite a supposed 40% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) database of state-wide extreme weather records, arguably the best of its kind in the world, shows that so far in 2019 only one weather record has been set: the lowest temperature in Illinois history.

In 2018, the only records set were: the largest hailstone in Alabama history; the most rainfall in a 24-hour period in Hawaii; and the most precipitation in one year in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia. Many of these records broke, sometimes barely, records that had stood for many decades.

In 2017, the only record set was for the fastest wind gust in California. No records were set in 2016. In 2015, only two records: the most precipitation in a year in Arkansas and the largest hailstone in Illinois history. In 2014, only one record: the most rainfall in a 24-hour period in New York.

And so it goes, year after year, as we move into the past with the occasional state record set, as one would expect due to natural climate variability. In the first 18+ years of the 21st century, only two states recorded their maximum temperatures: South Carolina in 2012 and South Dakota in 2006. Contrast that with 1936, when 15 states set their all-time maximum temperature records.

Meanwhile, NOAA’s updated coastal sea level tide gauge data for 2016 show no evidence that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. Seas are rising no faster than they have for many decades.

NOAA’s hurricane records go back to 1851. The data show that for almost 12 consecutive years – October 24, 2005 (after Wilma) until August 25, 2017 (Harvey) – not one major or moderate (Category 3-5) hurricane made landfall in the continental United States. That is the longest such period in history. In 2018, for the first time ever, not one “violent” (F4-5) tornado touched down in the United States.

To the great frustration of climate alarmists, the real-world instrumental record clearly shows that, not only is no climate emergency underway, but today’s climate is actually quite stable. Aside from the drive for world socialism, the climate scare is based on only one thing: computer model forecasts of what some say could happen someday if we do not restrict our use of fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions.

However, the models do not work. That’s because they focus predominantly on greenhouse gases, and because scientists do not understand planetary climate processes well enough to know what mathematical equations to program into the models. Observations demonstrate that the actual rate of warming between 1979 and 2017 is one-third of what the average of 102 different climate models predicted. In fact, that climate model average is now almost one full degree Fahrenheit above what satellites have measured!

It is also important to realize that your own local weather forecasts just one week ahead are accurate only half the time. Let’s drill a bit deeper into this scandal.

For the better part of three decades, governments have financed more than one hundred efforts to model our planet. They continue to do so even though none of the models has been able to recreate (hindcast) the known past, or after a decade of study accurately predict what was to happen just ten years later.

People are led astray, because generally speaking, the public has no clue what mathematical models actually are, how they work, and what they can and cannot do. To provide a simple insight into this complex subject, before we build airplanes or buildings, we make small scale physical models and test them against the stress and performances that will be required of them when they are actually built.

When dealing with systems that are totally beyond our control, we try to describe them with computer programs or mathematical equations that we hope may give answers to questions we have about how the system works today and in the future. We attempt to understand the variables that affect the system’s operation. Then we alter the variables and see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing and is the very best use of mathematical models.

Historically, we were never foolish enough to make economic decisions based on predictions calculated from equations we think might control how nature works. Perhaps the most active area for mathematical modeling is the economy and stock market. No one has ever succeeded in getting it right, and they have far fewer variables than Earth’s climate, which is governed by many powerful natural forces.

Yet, today, in the climate sphere, we are doing just that – and using the models to justify massive changes in our energy and economic systems. While no one knows all the variables affecting climate, there are likely hundreds of them. Here are some important factors for which we have limited understanding:

1) seasonal, annual and decadal changes in solar irradiation; 2) energy flows between the ocean and atmosphere; 3) energy flows between the air and land; 4) balance between Earth’s water, water vapor and ice; 5) the impacts of clouds, both trapping heat below and preventing solar radiation from reaching Earth; 6) understanding the planet’s ice; 7) changes in mass among ice sheets, seal levels and glaciers; 8) our ability to factor in hurricanes and tornadoes; 9) the impact of vegetation on temperature; 10) tectonic movements on ocean bottoms; 11) differential rotation between Earth’s surface and its core; and 12) solar system magnetic field and gravitational interactions.

Despite this vast uncertainty, today’s modelers claim they can forecast our planet’s climate for decades or even a century in the future – by looking primarily or solely at “greenhouse gases.” And they want our leaders to manage our energy, economic, agricultural, transportation and other systems accordingly.

Yes, there is a climate-related emergency. It is the threat to our way of life in the free democratic world – imposed on us by climate alarmists, many of whom do not really care about climate change, people or the environment. It is an assault no less frightening and damaging than the wars that have plagued mankind since the dawn of time. It’s time for people and governments to stand up to the power-hungry alarmists.

Via email


5 Surprising Scientific Facts about Earth’s Climate

There are many environmental facts that run contrary to popular belief. Here are five of them.

On the weekend of August 10–11, as if in chorus, major online news websites called on people to stop consuming meat. The calls echoed a recent United Nations report that recommended doing so to fight climate change.

It surprised many, but there are other more surprising facts about climate change that are hardly published in our everyday news media.

Below are some facts—scientifically recognized and published in peer-reviewed journals—that may raise your eyebrows.

1. Climate Has Always Changed—Always
All proxy temperature data sets reveal that there have been cyclical changes in climate in the past 10,000 years. There is not a single climate scientist who denies this well-established fact. It doesn’t matter what your position on the causes and magnitude and danger (or not) of current climate change is—you have to be on board on this one. Climate has always changed. And it has changed in both directions, hot and cold. Until at least the 17th century, all these changes occurred when almost all humans were hunters, gatherers, and farmers.

2. Temperature Increase in the Past Was Not Caused by Humans
Industrialization did not happen until the 17th century. Therefore, no prior changes in climate were driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide. In the last 2,000 years alone, global temperatures rose at least twice (around the 1st and 10th centuries) to levels very similar to today’s, and neither of those warm periods were caused by humans.

3. The Arctic and Antarctic Are Doing Better than Ever!
Yes, you read that right. The 10,000-year Holocene paleoclimatology records reveal that both the Arctic and Antarctic are in some of their healthiest states. The only better period for the poles was the 17th century, during the Little Ice Age, when the ice mass levels were higher than today’s. For the larger part of the past 10,000 years, the ice mass levels were lower than today’s. Despite huge losses in recent decades, ice mass levels are at or near their historic highs.

4. Polar Bears and Other Species Are Not Dying But Flourishing!
If you paid attention to the previous fact, then the following one is not hard to understand. Polar bears—often used as a symbol of climate doomsday—are one of the key species in the Arctic. Contrary to the hype surrounding their extinction fear, the population numbers have actually increased in the past two decades.

Last year, the Canadian government considered increasing polar bear killing quotas as their increasing numbers posed a threat to the Inuit communities living in the Nunavut area.

The increase in population size flies in the face of those who continue to claim otherwise in the popular news media. And it is not just the polar bears in the Arctic. Other critical species elsewhere, like tigers, are also making a comeback.

5. Carbon Dioxide Is Not a Temperature Control Knob
While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true.

The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t.

This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob.

It would be naïve not to acknowledge this blatant and lopsided reporting in our news media.

These are some of the many climate facts that the media refuses to acknowledge, like the impending solar minimum that NASA has predicted for the next two solar cycles between 2021 and 2041, ushering in a period of global cooling like it did during the solar minimum of 17th century.

There are other facts that run contrary to popular belief, such that there has been no increase in the frequency or intensity of floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, droughts, or other extreme weather events. Even the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported low confidence that global warming—manmade or not—was driving increases in extreme weather events.

The list is endless. It would be naïve not to acknowledge this blatant and lopsided reporting in our news media.


Heiress Aileen Getty, 62, has pledged £487,000 to the Climate Emergency Fund


An oil heiress has donated nearly £500,000 to a fund which backs Extinction Rebellion, claiming that 'disruption' is needed for there to be action on climate change.

Aileen Getty, 62, pledged £487,000 to the Climate Emergency Fund and said that the move is not 'necessarily restitution' for the fortune her family made.

Ms Getty, who is the granddaughter of the tycoon J Paul Getty, said that she hopes other high-net individuals will also donate to the CEF, reports the Telegraph.

She said: 'Whether the resources I have come from oil or not, I feel an urgency and it's a privilege to give whatever resources you have.'

Ms Getty told the Times that Extinction Rebellion protests are 'necessary because it is evident the public still is not sufficiently engaged.'

The mother-of-two, who was married to actress Elizabeth Taylor's son Chirstopher Wilding, also said she believes people are 'complicit' if they don't act on climate change.

She explained how 'most of us have the information at our fingertips' and will eventually have to answer to future generations.

The oil heiress, who is still flying but is 'willing' to change her travel habits, said Greta Thunberg was one of her inspirations.

She said: 'I'm willing to drop everything that needs to be dropped in order to arrive at a more equitable future for us all.'

When asked about the expansion at Heathrow airport, Ms Getty said she disagreed and a spokeman later clarified that she didn't support disrupting flights.

A group calling themselves Heathrow Pause have said that they are willing to go to jail over plans to ground flights from the airport from September 13.

Scotland Yard said they are 'deploying an effective policing plan' to detect illegal activity, although admitted the drone-based protest brought 'unique challenges'.

It comes as Heathrow officials met with the activists but were left 'disappointed' by the group's plans to still carry out the action.

Extinction Rebellion originally came up with the idea of using drones to shut down Heathrow over the summer.

But it abandoned its plans after facing a backlash from police, ministers and MPs which accused it of putting lives at risk. 

The CEF donated £283,000 to Extinction Rebellion this week in its first payment to the group.

Last week Extinction Rebellion activists wreaked misery on drivers in Manchester by barricading main roads as part of a four-day 'uprising'.

The climate campaigners wheeled a large boat reading 'planet before profit' into the normally busy Deansgate crossroads.

The demonstrators reportedly chose to occupy this particular junction owing to its allegedly unlawful levels of air pollution.

It mirrors the protests earlier this year in London which resulted in the crippling of  the capital's transport routes and saw more than a thousand arrests.

Aileen Getty is the second child of Sir John Paul Getty and Abigail Harris. Her brother Jean Paul III was kidnapped in the 1970s.

Ms Getty contracted HIV from an affair and has worked for several years to raise HIV-awareness, reports the Times.

The Gettys are the 56th richest family in the United State, with a net worth of $5.4 billion, according to Forbes.


NASA GISS Surface Station Temperature Trends Based On Sheer Guess Work, Made-Up Data, Says Japanese Climate Expert

Whenever NASA GISS announces how recent global temperatures are much hotter than, for example, 100 years ago, just how statistically reliable are such statements?

Most will agree, based mainly on sundry observations, that today is indeed warmer than it was when surface temperatures began to be recorded back in 1880. But we will never really know by how much.

Surface station datasets full of gigantic voids
When we look at NASA GISS’s site here, we can see how many surface stations have data going back to earlier years. Today we see that 2089 stations are at work in Version 3 unadjusted data.

Yet, when we go back 100 years (to 1919), we see only 997 of these surface stations have Version 3 unadjusted data that is complete:

Note how the Version 3 unadjusted datasets going back to 1919 are poorly distributed and sorrowfully lacking over Africa, Canada, the Arctic and all across the Southern Hemisphere. Never mind the oceans.

Only a measly 174 surface stations go back to 1880!
And when we look at the number of stations in Version 3 unadjusted data going back to 1880, ONLY 174 stations actually provide us with a complete thermometer dataset:

As is shown, Version 3 unadjusted data going back to 1880 covers only some parts of the US and Europe. All of Canada and Russia are void of data, and so it is impossible to know what the temperatures there really was.

The same is true for the entire southern hemisphere, let alone the entire globe. The bottom line: There is no way of knowing what the global temperature really was back in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

This tells us that global temperature trends since the start of the Industrial Revolutions presented by NASA are fraught with huge uncertainty.

“This is nothing new,” says Japanese climate expert Dr. Mototaka Nakamura in an email to NTZ. “We simply did not have many observing stations in the 1800s and early 1900s. They can produce ‘new data sets’ and claim that they have ‘better data sets’ all day long, but they just can’t make any meaningful difference for periods up to 1980.”

“Not real data”

“These datasets are products of simulation models and data assimilation software, not real data,” Dr. Nakamura added. “This problem has been present in data products produced by all institutions from the beginning – NASA, NOAA, NCEP, ECMWF, UMet, etc.”

“Spatial bias before 1980 cannot be dealt with”

But the data shortcomings get even worse. Dr. Nakamura wrote: “A far more serious issue with calculating ‘the global mean surface temperature trend’ is the acute spatial bias in the observation stations. There is nothing they can do about this either.  No matter what they do with the simulation models and data assimilation programs, this spatial bias before 1980 cannot be dealt with in any meaningful way. Just look at the locations of the observation stations used in GISS products for various years on their page.”

Dr. Nakamura commented earlier here at NTZ: “The global surface mean temperature change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”

So how can we be sure about the globe’s temperatures, and thus it’s trends before 1980? You can’t. The real data just aren’t there.



Four current articles below

Power pricing overhaul ‘should reward coal’

Coal-fired power plants face being pushed out of Australia's power grid earlier than forecast by negative daytime spot prices, sparking a call fora redesign of the national electricity market to prevent blackouts and ensure security of supply.

The Australian Energy Market Operator said dramatic spot price falls into negative territory this week, driven by cheap solar and wind, underlined the need to reset the market. It wants to introduce a new price mechanism reflecting the important reliability role provided by power stations, which are currently struggling to receive any value for their generation when they are undercut by renewables that can produce at close to zero cost

"We really do need to start thinking about putting in markets for firming," AEMO chief executive Audrey Zibelman said on the sidelines of a CEDA event. 'What we've been seeing in the last week is the fact that energy itself, because of renewables, can be at zero or even less than zero. "Unless we get the markets right — and we continue to see the emergence of rooftop solar as well as variable renewable energy — we'll see even earlier coal retirements than anticipated because the economics of plants won't be viable.

"What I would hate to see happen is that the plants actually re-tire earlier than we anticipate and suddenly we're not ready."

Zero and negative pricing in electricity spot markets is becoming more common and reflects a profound shift in the grid with growing solar and wind supply. The spot price of wholesale electricity traded at zero in every eastern Australian state at the  same time in July. Since then prolonged periods of negative prices at minus $1000 per megawatt hour have now spread from being relatively common in renewables-reliant South Australia to emerging as a new feature in Queensland's market this week, due to a solar surge and transmission constraints.

That has highlighted a conundrum for dispatchable generators. "These power plants, as we've been seeing the last few days when you've had negative pricing, that wasn't because the cost of en-ergy was negative or zero, it was because we weren't paying for reliability, the firming capacity, the way we should," Ms Zibelman said.

"We need to start recognising that resources that provide that important dispatchability need to be paid for differently than resources that are just providing energy."

Coal stations like EnergyAustralia's Yallourn unit in Victoria's Latrobe Valley are already operating under a cloud, with the state's high renewable targets and cuts to emissions threatening to force the plant to close earlier than its 2032 target.

The threat of losing baseload or dispatchable power earlier than forecast could lead to load shedding or even blackouts, given the tight market at periods of peak demand. Separate markets for firming generation and a similar system to Germany's reserve power market could help with the clan energy transition. If the market design works, power prices should ultimately fall to reflect the new zero cost trend for solar and wind.

"I think you would need multiple markets to really get the value for the type of resources we want," Ms Zibelman said. "The idea now is not one generator is able to provide everything, which is what we had with traditional fossil fuels. But it's understanding the portfolio so traditional units are paid for the value they supply


State refusing to let coal mine expand

State government delays in approval for expansion of the New Acland Coal Mine will likely see'it close within 18 months, costing 300 jobs, writes Michael Madliati

The decision (or, more to the point, the absence of a decision) by the State Government on the mining licence required for the expansion of the New Acland Coal Mine this week has left Andy and 300 other co-workers in limbo.

A lot of these people working in this "thin seam" coalmine operating for more than a century, and featuring thin ribbons of coal threaded through the earth as little as one metre high, don't have too many options. Many are specialised in this area of work, and there are not a lot of coal mines in the south-east to migrate to.

They can't just go off to another mine, as workers might in Queensland's Bowen Basin where massive thick seam operations which can tower over 60m are common, and hundreds of workers required.

Mine manager Dave O'Dwyer had the unenviable role of telling a large portion of them who started at the 6am shift Monday that 300 out of  the mine's 300 jobs had to be cut by October.

 O'Dwyer, who in recent months believed he had good reason to think the planned mine expansion was on track for approval, was clearly shaken. "I was really looking forward to getting up in front of them and talking about how our future was bright and prosperous and we would just move forward," he said.

Instead, he was greeted with a sea of blank faces as he told of the cuts, and workers began going through the mental arithmetic of how to celebrate Christmas minus a pay cheque. "As you look around the room there is just deadly silence," O'Dwyer said.

The expansion was expected to be given the green light by midnight Saturday and was the fulfilment of a process which began before the first ever iPhone came out. New Hope began jumping through the hoops to expand the mine in 2007 and has altered the application several times

Objectors have taken them to the Land Court, won, then to a New Hope (owners of the mine) appeal, when a Judicial Review ruled against the objectors's case and found the mining lease should be granted

Meanwhile objectors went back and appealed New Hope's successful appeal of the first decision, and the government won't the mining lease and associated water licence until that decision is finalised.

The State Govemment can, quite legally, green light the mining company's expansion and let it sort out its legal problems down the track while also bearing 'associated costs. But it won't, and that reluctance to get behind the expansion of a proven mining project utterly baffles O'Dwyer.

If Federal Labor had won the May federal election, New Hope might at least have been able to tailor their expectations and ambitions to a new 'anti coal' electoral mood. But Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk moved swiftly to change the mood in the State after the election which, in Queensland, was dearly fought over the Adani Mine proposal in Central Queensland.

The Premier jetted off to Mackay just days after the election and announced she would direct the Co-ordinator-' General to sit down with the Environment Department and Adani to get thing moving. Labor then put the resources industry front and centre at its State Conference last month

The Courier-Mail: 2019-09-07

Tonnes of reusable garbage sit in huge warehouse destined for landfill

Recycling finally revealed as a hoax.  Glass, steel and aluminium are recyclable but the rest is a nonsense

Thousands of tonnes of reusable waste could be soon dumped in landfill despite having been recycled correctly by residents more than two years ago.

Almost 10,000 tonnes of reusable garbage has been sitting in a Victorian warehouse since 2016 - and the company tasked with helping to process it, SKM Recycling, has gone under.

And that figure is only from one of five huge warehouses in Laverton, Victoria, piled  with unprocessed plastics, papers and cardboard.

Carly Whitington, a landlord at one of the warehouses, told A Current Affair if the issue wasn't addressed soon, the waste would end up in landfill.

As it stands Australia only reuses 12 per cent of its recycled rubbish, which puts it on par with South East Asian countries but far behind European nations.

Tasman Logistics Services director Craig Morris said China making moves to reduce the level of Australia's waste it takes was a huge factor in the crisis.

'Once China started making noises about reducing the amount of waste they were going to take, I think alarm bells should have been going off at high levels at that point,' he said.

The owners of the warehouses said they were in limbo on how to tackle the problem until they received guidance from the council or the state government.

Victorian Minister for the Environment, Lily D'Ambrosio, released a statement regarding the possibility of the recycled waste going to landfill. 'Sending recyclable material to landfill is always a last resort, but in some instances it may be a safer option than allowing materials to be stockpiled,' she said. 'Community safety must come first.'

SKM Recycling was tasked with processing the waste, but the company went out of business in August. However the Victorian State Government loaned $10 million to SKM's receivers KordaMentha to 'help clean up the stockpiles on SKM sites'.

'Clearing these waste stockpiles is the first step in making these sites safe and getting them up and running again,' Environment Minister Lily D’Ambrosio told The Age. 

'Sending material to landfill is always a last resort and that’s why we want to see processing begin when it is safe to do so.'

SKM group manager Bryan Webster said the $10million loan had to be used to clear as much of the plastics as they could - and it would all be going to landfill. 


Australia's green energy target won't be increased - but the country is set to hit goal of nearly a quarter of electricity coming from renewable sources

Australia's renewable energy target of less than one-quarter of all electricity generation won't be increased, the minister responsible has declared.

Australia is on track to achieve next year's target due to four large wind and solar power projects recently given the green light.

Under the target, 33,000 gigawatt-hours - or 23.5 per cent - of Australia's electricity will come from renewable sources by 2020.

The target was slashed in 2015 under the Abbott government from 41,000 gigawatt hours, with the support of Energy Minister Angus Taylor, who says it was too high.

'Those targets won't be increased, and the reason is very simple, it's because the economics of this is working fine now,' he told ABC Radio on Wednesday.

Mr Taylor says the boost in renewable energy has created a new challenge for the electricity system, fearing summer blackouts if there's not enough baseload power.

He says expanding the Snowy Hydro scheme, developing a second interconnector between Tasmania and the mainland, and the Apple Isle's 'Battery of the Nation' vision are all high priorities.

'These are crucial investments to get the balance in the system, that is the key now.'

Mr Taylor admits there is 'no question' the cost of energy from wind and solar are low, arguing this proves there's no longer a need for a renewable energy target.

The Morrison government is yet to announce what projects will receive taxpayer support through its underwriting of investments in power generation.

A shortlist of 12 projects was announced ahead of the federal election in May, which the coalition was expected to lose.

Mr Taylor says some projects will cost billions of dollars, and a final announcement has not been made, as he wants to ensure taxpayer money is well spent.

Labor went to the federal election with a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, which is now being reviewed.



For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here


No comments: